ZK Zorki And other uncommon Jupiter lenses

Printed from: USSRPhoto Forums

Topic URL: http://localhost:8088/modern/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2835

Printed on: 5/10/2026 4:18:14 PM

Topic

Topic author: Trazin

Posted on: 20150503172338

Hello everyone !
I bought recently a soviet ZK 85 mm, but after having a look on sovietcam dot com I have some doubts concerning the authenticity of the item...
It's really weird. The optical bloc seems ok (with serial number), but the digits on the rings are not drawn as it should be (3 and 4).
Is this a real ZK? What do you think?

http://s7.postimg.org/nhhxu9d5n/IMAG0584.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/48g9qi3mj/IMAG0588.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/qlslr1ty3/IMAG0590.jpg

http://s7.postimg.org/eh8qwbrob/IMAG0591.jpg

Help[V] !

Replies

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150504023107

Hi Trazin

I would say that it is fake. It seems to me that Zeiss numbers are also fake engravings. They should be deeply stamped. There are some other cosmetic differences from early Jupiter and Zk lenses.

altix

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150504060107

Thank you for your reply ! I think the same, so I will give it back to the seller.

I also saw other ZK and BK there. They seem genuine but I'm still not sure. Here are some pictures. What do you think about it?

http://s12.postimg.org/usdrfj319/IMAG0600.jpg

http://s12.postimg.org/ich1ls9p9/IMAG0601.jpg

http://s12.postimg.org/4y3ypr319/IMAG0605.jpg

http://s12.postimg.org/hx5rsrnrx/IMAG0607.jpg

http://s12.postimg.org/cj6zl7y1p/IMAG0608.jpg

http://s12.postimg.org/bkqmixkpp/IMAG0610.jpg

Reply author: Jacques M.

Replied on: 20150504065646

Hi Trazin,

For the Jup 9, I share Altix's opinion, alas...
About the other lenses you show, the Jup 12 should be genuine. But it would be interesting to know if it has a Zeiss number too...

I don't know for the Jup 3. Other photos would be necessary.

Amitiés. Jacques.

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150504080510

The BK barrel looks like genuine but I would say that both lenses are fakes. BK should not have Soviet lenses as this BK has. And the aperture ring of ZK looks like nothing to do with the Zeiss.But as Jacques mentioned, more pictures are needed. It seems that fake makers became more and more professional.

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150504081243

Hi Jacques!

I already get rid of the J-9.
I also think the J-12 is genuine. I would check the Zeiss number but I don't know how to open it... The seller wants 350 euros for it, do you think it's a good price?
For the J-3 there is no Zeiss number inside, just a hand drawn number (the seller told me not every ZK has it, I don't know if it's true). His shape is really strange, it looks like a PT1610 with a large ring. However the PT1610 was produced only in 1948 according to sovietcams dot com. Which picture would you need to be more precise?

Amitiés, Cyril

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150504081730

Hi Altix,

You're right. The lens look soviet... Maybe it's a real ZK on wich they put soviet lens ? Maybe because the original lens were in bad condition? If both are fake, it's really well done...

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150504083108

Dear Trazin

Zeiss number on BK you can see without dismantling it. Some lenses can come without the number but the lens block on BK you've shown is not original.

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150504085819

Dear Altix,

Thanks for information! I had some doubts.. you gave me confirmation. And what do you think about the J-3?

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150504092650

more pictures are needed, from 4 sides at least. Jacques can judge better than I but I think it is also fake.

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150504095142

I'm really impressed by the skills of the guy who made these fakes ... the mistakes are really hard to detect.

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150504101946

If the question of price 350 Euro or more why not to make double profit by mixing a genuine lens with the Jupiter. Two lenses would show some features of original and on every arguments against the originality there would be counterargument. I mean that the barrel of BK could be original. And don't be fooled by the beauty ring [:0].

Reply author: Jacques M.

Replied on: 20150504110254

Concerning the BK and Jup 12, there was certainly a great mess at KMZ's in the 1950-52 years...[:D]

I own three of these Jup 12, from the years 1951 and 52. They are all different, either in diameter of the front aluminium barrel, or in the visible inside, near the beauty ring. Two of them have a thread for a 40,5mm filter,but not at the same place (!), two again have a (correct) Zeiss number....

The BK you show looks like one of my 1951 Jup 12, at least about the aluminium barrel, which is exactly the same. Idem for the inside with the design between the diaph range and the glass. My 5101884 belongs to a series of 2000 Biogons which were made only in LTM mount by Zeiss. So, if this BK has a Zeiss number around (2)84xxxx, it should be genuine...

But you will be sure only when the lens is in your hand...!

Amitiés. Jacques.

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150504111213

dear Jacques,

The coating tells that it is neither Zeiss nor early KMZ optical block. But the barrel as you said most probably is authentic. As for myself I would not buy this lens.

best regards,
altix

Reply author: Jacques M.

Replied on: 20150504112635

You are right, Altix.
There is some uncertainty about the coating which is really very blue.
I had not looked at it correctly.

But I would be curious to know if the rear triplet has Zeiss origins.
These lenses were such a "meccano"...

Jacques.

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150504122226

[:D] Very interesting metaphor, Jacques! But "meccano" was designed to make children a creative constructors. I would say it is more like "lego": Independent of what blocks you use from the constructor kit at the end you get Jupiter 12 [:D]

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150504124046

Unfortunatly I didn't took picture from the rear...

That's all:
On the the ZK-50 optical block there are the same kind of inscription as those you can see on the ZK-135's block.

[url=http://postimg.org/image/5l3nj3jd5/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/5xv1pa1n1/IMAG0593.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/7kouo932h/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/oxz533ydp/IMAG0594.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/bpzra60uh/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/d51byw1xp/IMAG0595.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/3lrn5fefd/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/xqg3qsjil/IMAG0596.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/q6ifb00y1/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/8ggqpynd9/IMAG0597.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/gahcbcv61/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/d3msrqaq5/IMAG0598.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/ij046frnt/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/j8iwiss7h/IMAG0599.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/mqzhsxih5/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/accpslqz1/IMAG0601.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/tq8yejt1l/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/kv8441499/IMAG0602.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/odk40f555/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/byxc03dn1/IMAG0603.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/wn0ksko95/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/f9qadpsy5/IMAG0604.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/eqglqpc5l/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/gi9kllvil/IMAG0607.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/7xku86aq1/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/dlr4z2f2l/IMAG0608.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/wydfrlfbd/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/dta6hu0nh/IMAG0609.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/fca60jwll/full/]

http://s12.postimg.org/h434vgfyl/IMAG0610.jpg

[/url]

hébergement gratuit d'images

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150504124446

Dear Trazin. Take ZK 135 and run away [:)]. No doubt it is genuine.

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150504131405

It is funny enough but here is another lens with close scratched number. The number was replaced with another. Probably the optical block was adjusted to another barrel initially and the person who marked made a mistake. But you see that the person who made both engravings was the same man or woman.

http://www.ussrphoto.com/resize/resize_image.aspx?ImgWd=800&IptFl=/UserContent/452015_zk2.jpg

http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/452015_zk2.jpg

http://www.ussrphoto.com/resize/resize_image.aspx?ImgWd=800&IptFl=/UserContent/452015_zk1.JPG

http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/452015_zk1.JPG

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150504133751

Wow ! Obviously you are right, the same guy (or girl) held both objectives in his hands some 67 years ago, amazing !
There is the same kind of scrached numbers on the J-3's optical block. So maybe it's also genuine ?!

Reply author: Jacques M.

Replied on: 20150504160915

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Trazin
 Wow ! Obviously you are right, the same guy (or girl) held both objectives in his hands some 67 years ago, amazing !
There is the same kind of scrached numbers on the J-3's optical block. So maybe it's also genuine ?!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You know, there is a sort of bet each time I buy one of these lenses: genuine or fake? Partly or completely? If partly, it corresponds to which possible history? and so on...

So, good luck if you join the fans of these lenses!

Jacques.

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150504162014

Concerning J3 I tend to call it fake. I do not see any details that can convince me that this is Zorki lens with suitable number. It looks like the original but the devil is always in details. The most disgusting in this model are these Zeiss "ears". It seems that it is the knurled ring from late J3 with cuted away edges to bring the form of ears. The original ears in this serial number span were chrome plated and really well made. Engravings on this ring look like original, but "4" is of different form. There are also other details like shape of some numbers, size of bolts, etc.

I would also expect pressed Zeiss number on the lens block. Of course 1950 was a turbulent year for KMZ lenses. There could be many variations of design. But still I do not believe that it is original lens. It was very stupid for KMZ to make a knurled ring and then to cut it in order to produce ears. Very illogical and costly experiment with the design.

From all lenses you showed us I would buy only ZK 135. It is the only jewel there that is put to sell the rest of this folklore stuff.

Reply author: Svetopisez

Replied on: 20150504172242

These lenses (or another two newly developed fakes) are on sale at AVITO (500 euro each) - https://www.avito.ru/moskva/fototehnika/zorkiy_zk_85_mm_sonnar_i_bk_35_mm_biogon_563974631

Reply author: Svetopisez

Replied on: 20150504173436

As for the J3 - I completely agree with altix: "The most disgusting in this model are these Zeiss "ears". It seems that it is the knurled ring from late J3 with cuted away edges to bring the form of ears. The original ears in this serial number span were chrome plated and really well made." It is absolutely obvious for me that the "ears" are made from the late J3 because the signs of the cutter are clearly seen on the ring!

Reply author: Luiz Paracampo

Replied on: 20150504210112

In my modest opinio these are the best fakes I saw...[:(]
Regards
LP

Although not authentic I regard these lenses as great collective pieces

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150505005005

Hi everyone!
Thanks for all these details! It's impressing how far they can go to make their fakes look realistic [:0]...
I saw these items before they appeared on avito. Furthermore the seller told me he would never put it on avito as they are too valuable. He proposed me 20 000 rubles (340 euros) for each. And he seems to have a lot of other ... Fakes ... If I meet him again I would send you some pics ;)

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150505025407

By the way, from the same seller :

[url=http://postimg.org/image/egt7r1287/full/]

http://s7.postimg.org/b9yo7ehsb/IMAG0612.jpg

[/url]

For me, it looks genuine...

Reply author: Jacques M.

Replied on: 20150505050910

It would be difficult to fake a collapsible mount.
KMZ used Zeiss's ones and did not produce such bodies by themselves, as far as I know.
Hope you won't propose all the lenses which are on the net...[;)]

Jacques.

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150505051805

Dear Jacques,

Of course I won't ;) ! I was just confused by this seller... he has a lot of stuff among which there are lots of fakes and some good things aswell. Many of these items are not on the net (two of them just came out on the web yesterday after I saw them ;) ).

Reply author: Luiz Paracampo

Replied on: 20150505115508

This Sonnar is authentic and was a special series requested to equip Leica bodies during the war.

the remaining lenses were used on some first FED-Zorki

LP

Reply author: Jacques M.

Replied on: 20150505160350

Yes, I own one of these remaining lenses.
A Sonnar with M marking, and two different Zeiss numbers, so remounted. But by whom...
It works perfectly on my Fed S.

Jacques.

Reply author: uwittehh

Replied on: 20150507144529

I am not sure that the J3 is a fake. I own a J3 from 1951 that has ears like the one shown here and an internal stamped in number but it is named Jupiter 3. So who would fake such a lens? And when I compare the ears to a ring on a normal J3 I don't belive that it is cut out (even if it looks so). The ears are much thicker than the ring.

See here:

http://ritzelkiste.de/ussrphoto/j35101.jpg

http://ritzelkiste.de/ussrphoto/j35102.jpg

http://ritzelkiste.de/ussrphoto/j35103.jpg

Ulrich

http://fotos.cconin.de

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150507154259

Dear Ulrich,

everything could be. As I wrote that 1950 was a turbulent year for KMZ and one can spot dozens of design variations. I used as a reference a lens that is only few numbers from the lens what was shown.

http://www.ussrphoto.com/resize/resize_image.aspx?ImgWd=800&IptFl=/UserContent/752015_1.JPG

http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/752015_1.JPG

http://www.ussrphoto.com/resize/resize_image.aspx?ImgWd=800&IptFl=/UserContent/752015_2.JPG

http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/752015_2.JPG

http://www.ussrphoto.com/resize/resize_image.aspx?ImgWd=800&IptFl=/UserContent/752015_3.JPG

http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/752015_3.JPG

The ears are of different form and are chrome plated. There are differences in engravings and the stopper bolt is on other position.

Now I see that your Jupiter 3 looks the same as ZK from 1950. Still the absence of Zeiss number on ZK is confusing. But it is possible to have ZK without Zeiss number and Jupiter with Zeiss glass. So there is still uncertainty about the lens but now I am not so sure that it is fake. Thank you.

with best regards
altix

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150507160513

Probably when the original Zeiss ears were all used, KMZ used other available knurled rings brought from Zeiss factory. KMZ workers modified the rings to make Zeiss-look design. It is not a very elegant method but is ok when you have tons of spare parts that you can use in this way.

Reply author: uwittehh

Replied on: 20150507164321

Yes, that could be possible. Or maybe later in the years parts were used by KMZ that were not used by Zeiss before because they do not fit the Zeiss standards and that were not thrown away in the war confusion. We will never know it... ;-)

Ulrich

http://fotos.cconin.de

Reply author: Jacques M.

Replied on: 20150508053035

I think too that we must be cautious: we don't know in which order KMZ used all the parts which came from Germany...

Another lens for which I would like your opinion.

It's a 1951 jup 3, internal barrel made of brass, a very beautiful green coating on the first glass (impossible to shoot correctly). The usual lilac/blue tints are inside, with yellow. An astonishing rainbow!
I had seen only one other lens like this one, but it was in M42 mount, if I remember.
No ears and no possibility to unscrew to check if there is a Zeiss number.

I cannot "decide" if it is a Zeiss or KMZ lens...[:o)]

http://www.ussrphoto.com/resize/resize_image.aspx?ImgWd=800&IptFl=/UserContent/852015_DSCF2153.JPG

http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/852015_DSCF2153.JPG

Amitiés. Jacques.

Reply author: altix

Replied on: 20150508073136

Oh, congratulations Jacques! It seems that you have multicoated lens from 1951 [:)] Original German patent 1934 says in indirect way about possible multicoating of lenses. Who knows it could be that your Jupiter was some trial of Zeiss in multicoating procedure. But it could be that somebody coated the lenses recently. Who knows...

Reply author: Jacques M.

Replied on: 20150508081937

I have owned this lens since years.
But I have never seen such a green coating on another lens (except the Jup in another mount). It looks exactly like the green of fujifilms!

I will try this lens on a body. I have to, now....[:)]

Jacques.

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150510144806

Jacques,

Really nice lense ;)!! I never have never seen such a coating on jupiters, amazing!

By the way, one more fake spoted : https://www.avito.ru/moskva/fototehnika/obektiv_zk_502.0_1948_561445475

Cyril.

Reply author: fotomuda

Replied on: 20150511043509

My friend has also jupiter-3 with ears!

Reply author: Moxies

Replied on: 20150513043830

Faking ZK's is new sport [:)]

Nice green coating Jacques, I also never seen such one
I'm not a ZK lover, since their price a going wild even in ex-soviet republics, I just have a Jupiter-3 kiev mount with ears and brass barrel, which perform very well!

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150617034621

Hello Everyone !

Jacques, Did you try your lens? Does it perform well?

I think I have something pretty similar with a kind of multicoating. Perhaps they made a whole series of multicoated jupiter during the 50's?!

[url=http://postimg.org/image/93jz25t3b/full/]

http://s15.postimg.org/jdme1eiyz/IMAG0793.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/hkjhd2xs7/full/]

http://s15.postimg.org/gi9aujeyz/IMAG0794.jpg

[/url]

I bought it mostly because of the serial number :).

Cyril.

Reply author: Jacques M.

Replied on: 20150618033342

Hi Cyril!

No, I have not yet tried my "green" Jup 3: too much material, and I have no numerics to try the lenses. Perhaps it will be my next purchase.

As for your Jup 11, I Wonder if you don't have an ungluing of a glass Inside. The irisation on the last photo remembers me one of my postwar Sonnars. Hope I am wrong and it is only the reflexion of the trees!

Amitiés. Jacques.

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150618045515

Jacques,

Yes,unfortunately one of the glass is a bit unglued in the corner. Do you think it was made using post war Zeiss lens ? It would be really strange. Maybe it was an experimental part ?
To make such a fake would be a nonsense as it was not so expensive ... (Twice the price of a jupititer 11 in average condition).

Amitiés, Cyril

Reply author: Jacques M.

Replied on: 20150619054707

Hi Cyril,

It's rather the Zeiss Oberkochen lenses (Western production) which are known to have problems of separation. I own one of these lenses s/n 1979274, a 1,5/5cm LTM Sonnar, which has a strong separation inside: a question of glue.

Yours is a Jup, so on the Jena eastern side. These lenses are generally free from this kind of problem. And in 1952, the Jup 11 was surely completely made by KMZ. So, it's certainly an individual problem.

Amitiés. Jacques.

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150619070547

Hello Jacques,

So it might mean that somewhere around 1952 KMZ experimented some multicoated lenses and issued some of them... It's interesting! And maybe a multicoated version of other jupiter also exists :)

Amitié, Cyril.

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150624143934

Hello everyone !

I found another multicoated jupiter. I could uncrew it and I found a sratched number on the lens block. It seems to be "45" and a Russian "Á". I also found a J-12 of the same kind from 1957.I have still no idea about this multicoated serie of jupiter since I haven't found any information about multicoated jupiters, they seem to be mostly unknown :( ...

[url=http://postimg.org/image/4qqnwxq1f/full/]

http://s21.postimg.org/aewyntudz/IMAG0850.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/n8v0h67tf/full/]

http://s21.postimg.org/x661a8ffb/IMAG0853.jpg

[/url]

[url=http://postimg.org/image/o9v96aosz/full/]

http://s21.postimg.org/dzsu71yxj/IMAG0857.jpg

[/url]

Cyril

Reply author: Jacques M.

Replied on: 20150624151401

Hi Cyril,

The two "45" on your lens are there obviously for reasons of mounting, at the factory or a repairman's.
As for the Jup 12, if your question is about the date of changing mono towards multi coating, I don't know. I have made a quick research: no real answer.

A question more to solve?

Jacques.

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20150624155201

Hi Jacques!

In fact, since there is no documentation about these lenses, there is a lot of question to solve :). The main answer being why did they start making some multi coated lenses in the early 1950's and then stopped (wasn't it a kind of substential progress for color photo?!) and why so few of theses lenses were produced as they seem to be rare enough... Maybe I'm mistaking but they seem to be as hard to find as ZK ones but not as expensive ecause no one is looking for them :).

Amitiés,
Cyril

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20151230075501

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20151230081026

Bye the way. the rear cap is pretty unusual...

http://i.imgsafe.org/6d53890.jpg

http://i.imgsafe.org/6e01dee.jpg

Cyril

Reply author: Jacques M.

Replied on: 20151230114454

Hello Cyril!

At first sight, the body of your BK seems correct, with its two screws. As for the glasses, of course, I cannot tell. A 1948 BK should have a Zeiss number, I think.
Note that I own three early Jup 12. Two have Zeiss numbers, and the bodies are different on the three ones...

Amitiés.
And all my wishes to everybody for 2016!
Jacques.

Reply author: AlexanderK

Replied on: 20151230140828

Hi Cyril,
your Jup-12 seems to be the late one. My opinion, it is not a genuine BK-lens. The rear cap seems to be not genuine as well, sorry.

P.S. I bought 2009 two BK lenses from one seller from Moscow, both are fakes (unfortunately I have checked them about 1/2 year later).
May be we have the same seller [:)]. You can write me on my Email.

Regards, Alexander

Reply author: Trazin

Replied on: 20151231014021

Hello everyone!

All jy wishes for 2016! Hope you will a lot of interesting cameras during the it's ing new year !

This is really disappointing. The fake is really well made it nerfs just a Zeiss number... And its not most difficult to fake ...

Best wishes,

Cyril

Reply author: Kievuser

Replied on: 20160312063612

I have a very uncommon Jupiter-8,a 1954 one found on a Zorki-3. The usual J-8s have 3 screws on the back.

Cheers

Zhang

http://www.ussrphoto.com/resize/resize_image.aspx?ImgWd=800&IptFl=/UserContent/1232016_P3126272.JPG

http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/1232016_P3126272.JPG

Reply author: jed

Replied on: 20160313004534

Hi Zhang,
My 1954 s/n 5447526 j8 is also without the 3 screws. Lens came with a Zorki 3.

Best,
Jed

Reply author: Kievuser

Replied on: 20160313090308

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by jed
 Hi Zhang,
My 1954 s/n 5447526 j8 is also without the 3 screws. Lens came with a Zorki 3.

Best,
Jed
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hi Jed,

Thanks for the input. I guess I did not pay much attention to these details before. I had a look at all the J-8s on that auction site last night and it seems that this type of J-8s are very common. In fact, all the J-8s made before 1954 including the ZKs are without the 3 screws. J-8s made between 1955 and sometime in 1959 has the focusing lever,and 3 screws , and J-8s made later are without the lever.[:I]

Cheers,

Zhang